LAT revokes Car Import Export after dealer let unregistered friend sell cars on his lot

On April 28, 2026, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal revoked both the dealer and salesperson registrations of Milan Maceka, operating as Car Import Export in Hamilton, after finding that Maceka allowed an unregistered individual to sell vehicles on his lot. A consumer paid $4,500 for a 2008 Mazda Tribute and received neither the car nor a refund. The full decision is published on CanLII as 2026 CanLII 39676 (ON LAT).

What happened

Maceka had been registered as a motor vehicle dealer since August 1992 and was the only salesperson registered to his dealership at 289 Cannon Street East in Hamilton. An individual named Karokh Latif, who was not registered as a salesperson, was regularly present on the lot.

In May 2023, Warren Back visited the lot looking for a used SUV. Latif approached him, showed him vehicles, and took a $200 deposit on a 2008 Mazda Tribute. Latif retrieved a receipt book from the dealership office and wrote the receipt on the hood of a car, telling Back his “boss” was on the phone inside. The next day, Back’s wife Peggy Hayes returned and paid Latif the remaining $4,300. She received another receipt from the same book. Neither Back nor Hayes ever received a Bill of Sale, the vehicle, or their money back.

OMVIC investigator Blake Smiley, a 15-year veteran, was assigned the complaint in June 2023. Between June 2023 and November 2024, Smiley visited the lot multiple times and found Latif there on nearly every visit: working under the hood of vehicles, using a portable air compressor on unplated cars, and on one occasion driving a Ford Escape with Maceka’s dealer plate (919 DNB) hanging from the back. That dealer plate had expired in April 2024.

A second investigator, Kevin Baird, attended the lot undercover in April 2024 posing as a consumer. He found both Maceka and Latif inside the office. When Baird asked about the Mazda, Maceka pointed to Latif, who said it was sold and “was no good.” Maceka then offered Baird a Hyundai Santa Fe for $4,500.

There was also the matter of a misplaced licence plate. Back received a parking ticket for a Ford Escape bearing plate CYXC 484, which MTO records showed was registered in Back’s name for the 2008 Mazda. The Ford Escape belonged to Maceka’s dealership. Maceka had no explanation for how Back’s plate ended up on his vehicle.

Maceka’s defence and where it fell apart

Maceka testified that Latif was a friend and neighbour who had permission to park his personal car on the lot. He said he had never had a salesperson or employee in 32 years of dealing and was not aware that Latif was selling the Mazda.

Under cross-examination, that account unravelled. Maceka admitted he saw Back talking to Latif at the dealership, contradicting his earlier testimony that he had never seen Back before the hearing. He admitted lending Latif his receipt book “on two occasions” for the Mazda sale to Back. Vice-Chair Kevin Kovalchuk found this admission impossible to reconcile with the claim that Maceka did not know Latif was selling the car (para. 86).

When confronted with photographs of Latif boosting vehicles and driving a car with the dealership’s dealer plate, Maceka offered that Latif “probably wanted to buy the vehicle” and that he put a dealer plate on it for a test drive. He then acknowledged that dealer plates are meant to be used when a customer is accompanied by a salesperson, which Latif was not (para. 63).

The legal test

The case turned on s. 6(1)(a)(ii) of the MVDA, which allows the Registrar to refuse or revoke registration where “the past conduct of the applicant … affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.” OMVIC did not need to prove an employment relationship between Maceka and Latif, only that Maceka’s conduct as a registered dealer gave the Registrar reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be conducted honestly going forward (para. 68).

The Tribunal found the burden met. Maceka allowed Latif to hold himself out as a salesperson, lent him dealership resources (receipt book, dealer plate), and the result was actual consumer harm: Back lost $4,500 and had no recourse to the Compensation Fund because the sale was conducted by an unregistered person (para. 69).

Neither party made submissions on whether the Tribunal should substitute conditions for revocation under s. 9(5). The Tribunal therefore ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke both of Maceka’s registrations.

For comparison, in Jandu and Used Car Depot, the Tribunal did substitute conditions for revocation after a 30-year dealer demonstrated cooperation and willingness to remediate. In Leon’s Fine Cars, revocation was upheld where the conduct included dealing in stolen and revinned vehicles. Both decisions applied the same statutory test under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) and s. 9(5), but the outcomes turned on the severity of the misconduct and the dealer’s credibility.

What to learn

• Control who works your lot. Allowing someone who is not registered as a salesperson to interact with consumers, take money, or use your dealership’s receipt book or dealer plate can cost you your registration under s. 6(1)(a)(ii) of the MVDA. The Tribunal does not require proof of a formal employment relationship.
• Unregistered sales cut off the Compensation Fund. When a consumer buys from an unregistered person operating on a dealer’s lot, they lose access to the Fund. The dealer bears responsibility for letting that situation develop.
• Raise s. 9(5) or lose it. If you do not make submissions on s. 9(5) (the Tribunal’s power to substitute conditions for revocation), the Tribunal will not consider it on its own. In this case, neither party raised it, and revocation was carried out without any discussion of conditions.